Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Kashinath A Pande, Specific Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - III

2015 (4) TMI 1025 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of CENVAT CREDIT - Credit merely on the strength of the duty-paying documents i.e. Bill of Entry without using the scrap as inputs in the manufacture of final products - Held that:- Appellant indeed submitted a letter dated 23/08/2010 wherein they have requested the adjudicating authority to provide relied upon documents as listed in Annexure III to the show cause notice. However, the adjudicating authority has not dealt this request and even not stated anything in the order whether the r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ively found to be reasonable. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEALS NOS: E/87187 & 87188/2013 - Dated:- 16-4-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri M.P.S Joshi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ashuthoh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner (A. R.) ORDER The appeal is directed against Orders-in-Appeal No: PIII/RP/88-90/2013 dated 28/03/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the factory of the appellant M/s. Specific Alloys Pvt. Ltd. However, the appellant, M/s. Specific Alloys Pvt. Ltd. had availed CENVAT credit merely on the strength of the duty-paying documents i.e. Bill of Entry without using the scrap as inputs in the manufacture of final products and had thereby contravened the provisions of the Act. The said diversion of the inputs and their onward delivery was facilitated by M/s. Nikhil Shipping Agency and the transporter M/s. Llakshya Container Carriers; .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AT Credit Rules and proposing confiscation of the inputs on which credit had been availed which valued at ₹ 51,48,670/- under Rule 15(1) and Rule 25 of the Rules read with Section 34 of the Act and proposing imposition of penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Rules on the appellant M/s. Specific Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and proposing imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Rules on the other appellant. The said show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. PUN-CEX-002-ADJ-ADDL-16-2011 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 34 of the Act in lieu of confiscation of inputs valued at ₹ 51,48,670/-; (e) Imposed fine of ₹ 5,14,867/- under Section 34 of the Act in lieu of confiscation of manufactured finished goods valued at ₹ 51,48,670/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/RS/384-386/2011 dated 29/12/2011 dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of pre-deposit order No. PI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to Section 11A(1) of the Act is upheld up to the amount of ₹ 5,36,547/-. (b) Order regarding confirmation of the demand of interest, under Section 11AB of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Rules is upheld on the above amount. (c) Penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 15(2) of the Rules is reduced to ₹ 5,36,547/-. (d) Redemption fines totaling ₹ 10,29,734/- are set aside. Therefore, the appellants are before me. 4. Shri MPS Joshi, learned counsel for the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en given. He submits that the entire case was based upon various statements of various persons which were relied upon in the show cause notice. In the absence of such vital statements the appellant was not in a position to make their representation before the adjudicating authority. He submits that by not supplying the relied upon documents the adjudication order is grossly under violation of principles of natural justice. He also submits that the denial of CENVAT credit is also made for the per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version